On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I know, but it does have randomness.
>
> I includes a chance process just as many sophisticated things in our life
> do. It does not include arbitrariness. It will most often lead to a certain
> winner (one option getting
Dear Raph,
you answered to me:
a) FAWRB is not a random but a very specific and quite sophisticated
method. It only uses a certain amount of chance, just as many things in
our life do. Chance should not be mixed up with arbitrariness. Used in a
rational way, FAWRB will usually elect good comprom
Dear Greg,
you wrote:
Group membership is difficult to define. With ranked ballots it's
simple, but in the majority criterion debate, I argue that a score of
60% represents 60% of a first preference, not the preference between 59%
and 61%.
Sorry, I don't get your meaning here.
However, it
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The thing is that in such a case, it isn't really a single 'demos'. It is
>> two groups voting as one.
>
> Do you mean to say democracy is only for societies which are
> sufficiently homogeneous?
To a certain extent, I wo
Dear Diego,
you wrote:
The risk of minority will remains. How does FAWRB perform in binary issues?
What you mean by "risk of minority"? That a minority favourite may win?
Well, that is just the *feature* of FAWRB: It gives each part of the
electorate full control over an equal share of the
These majorities, as described, seem close to identical twins, with little,
if any, ability for individual thinking.
Plurality promotes closeness for two major factions.
Voters have painful decisions which can result in real, if painful,
party strength - they cannot both back party choices
Dear Jobst,
> I will focus on the question of majoritarianism in this message.
>
> First my working definition of "majoritarian method": A method is
> majoritarian if for every option X and every group G consisting of more than
> half of the voters, there is a way of voting for G which makes sure
Jobst,
2008/10/16 Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dear Diego,
>
> But randomness of FAWRB can cause institutional conflicts, especially if
>> the minority faction leader was the winner.
>>
>
> My focus has always been to decide issues, not to elect people.
The risk of minority will remain
Dear Diego,
But randomness of FAWRB can cause institutional conflicts, especially if
the minority faction leader was the winner.
My focus has always been to decide issues, not to elect people.
> My suggestion if your
scenario exists is:
1. Perform simultaneously an approval election and a
Jobst,
2008/10/16 Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dear Raph,
>
> you wrote:
>
>> The thing is that in such a case, it isn't really a single 'demos'. It is
>> two groups voting as one.
>>
>
> Do you mean to say democracy is only for societies which are
> sufficiently homogeneous?
>
>
>> That
Dear Raph,
you wrote:
The thing is that in such a case, it isn't really a single 'demos'.
It is two groups voting as one.
Do you mean to say democracy is only for societies which are
sufficiently homogeneous?
That doesn't help because then the majority on issue A will still
overrule the re
://62.75.149.22/groucho_fawrb_dp.php
Yours, Jobst
Terry Bouricius schrieb:
What does "FAWRB" stand for?
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -----
From: "Jobst Heitzig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Greg Nisbet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Raph Frank"
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> However, you do get degenerate societies where there is a majority
>> that is a bloc.
>
> That's exactly my point. There are lots of such examples which all show
> clearly that majoritarianism is not democratic.
The thin
Dear Raph,
you replied to me:
> > That leads me to the main problem with Range (as with any other majoritarian
> > method): It is simply not democratic. It cannot be because every
> > majoritarian method gives 100% of the power to less than 100% of the people
> > (the "demos" in greek).
>
> They
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was attempting to make a distinction between an active and a passive
> majority. Any active majority (one unwilling to make any compromises
> whatsoever, voting every non-them candidate the lowest possible score) will
> win
Dear Greg,
I will focus on the question of majoritarianism in this message.
First my working definition of "majoritarian method": A method is majoritarian
if for every option X and every group G consisting of more than half of the
voters, there is a way of voting for G which makes sure X wins r
> Reasons why Range is better and always will be.
> I would like to end the truce.
That won't work I guess. Using the term "better" alone is a major flaw of
many discussions here. Obviously, it all depends on what goals a method is
expected to achieve.
Ok, using the term "better" is biased,
17 matches
Mail list logo
